8 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hayne v. Progressive Northern Insurancegreen2 sentences2007Prior decisions explaining and interpreting the physical contact requirement are instructive to our determination in this case. ¶ 16 The first case in which we interpreted Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (4)(a)2.b. and established that the statute requires physical contact was Hayne, 115 Wis.2d at 69 , 339 N.W.2d 588 . 2007The court of appeals interpreted the physical contact requirement under Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (4)(a)2.b. to mean a " 'touching between the vehicles.'" Id. at 22 (quoting Hayne, 115 Wis. 2d at 78 ). | 2 | 5 |
Smith v. General Casualty Insurancegreen2 sentences2007Id., ¶ 12, 619 N.W.2d 882 . ¶ 24 We relied on Hayne, Amidzich, and Wegner , which we classified as the cases in the "miss-and-run series," to explain the physical contact requirement. 2007In analyzing whether the chain-reaction type of collision in Smith met the physical contact requirement, we recognized that our decision in Theis was a "consideration of the public policy issues under-girding [uninsured] motorist coverage." Smith, 239 Wis. 2d 646, ¶ 24 . | 1 | 3 |
Schultz v. Natwickgreen2 sentences2005We reject this argument because "no change in the law is justified simply by a `case with more egregious facts.'" Schultz, 257 Wis. 2d 19, ¶ 38 (quoting Stevens, 181 Wis. 2d at 442 (Abrahamson, J., concurring)). 2005We reject this argument because "no change in the law is justified simply by a 'case with more egregious facts.'" Schultz, 257 Wis. 2d 19, ¶ 38 (quoting Stevens, 181 Wis. 2d at 442 (Abrahamson, J., concurring)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stevensgreen2 sentences2005We reject this argument because "no change in the law is justified simply by a `case with more egregious facts.'" Schultz, 257 Wis. 2d 19, ¶ 38 (quoting Stevens, 181 Wis. 2d at 442 (Abrahamson, J., concurring)). 2005We reject this argument because "no change in the law is justified simply by a 'case with more egregious facts.'" Schultz, 257 Wis. 2d 19, ¶ 38 (quoting Stevens, 181 Wis. 2d at 442 (Abrahamson, J., concurring)). | 1 | 1 |
Simpson v. Farmers Insurancegreen2 sentences1983Co., Inc., 225 Kan. 508 , 592 P.2d 445, 449 (1979) (majority rule is that the physical contact requirement is contrary to public and legislative policy in uninsured or unknown motorist statutes); Surrey v. Lumbermens Mut. 1983Co., Inc., 225 Kan. 508 , 592 P.2d 445, 449 (1979) (majority rule is that the physical contact requirement is contrary to public and legislative policy in uninsured or unknown motorist statutes); Surrey v. Lumbermens Mut. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Theis v. Midwest Security Insurance
green
2 sentences2007Id., ¶ 26 (quoting Theis, 232 Wis. 2d 749, ¶ 28 ). 10 Therefore, based on the language of the statute and the public policy concerns, we concluded the chain-reaction collision met the physical contact requirement for a "hit- and-run" and coverage was mandated under Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (4)(a)2.b. 2007Id., ¶ 26 (quoting Theis, 232 Wis. 2d 749, ¶ 28 ). 10 Therefore, based on the language of the statute and the public policy concerns, we concluded the chain-reaction collision met the physical contact requirement for a "hit- and-run" and coverage was mandated under Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (4)(a)2.b. | 3 | 2000–2007 |
Wegner v. Heritage Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2007This reading would preserve the justification for the physical contact requirement, i.e., the prevention of *402 fraudulent claims." Id. at 127 , 496 N.W.2d 140 . ¶ 23 We once again interpreted Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (4)(a)2.b. in Smith , where the insured was driving his vehicle in the right lane of the interstate. 2007This reading would preserve the justification for the physical contact requirement, i.e., the prevention of *402 fraudulent claims." Id. at 127 , 496 N.W.2d 140 . ¶ 23 We once again interpreted Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (4)(a)2.b. in Smith , where the insured was driving his vehicle in the right lane of the interstate. | 2 | 1999–2007 |
Dehnel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
1 sentence2007The court of appeals interpreted the physical contact requirement under Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (4)(a)2.b. to mean a "`touching between the vehicles.'" Id. at 22 , 604 N.W.2d 575 (quoting Hayne, 115 Wis.2d at 78 , 339 N.W.2d 588 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Romanshek
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Bauman v. Gilbertson
green
2 sentences2005"It is more than likely that some of the companies utilizing such [a clause] have established premium rates in reliance upon the validity of such a clause being upheld by the decisions of this court." Bauman v. Gilbertson, 7 Wis. 2d 467, 469 , 96 N.W.2d 854 (1959). 2005"It is more than likely that some of the companies utilizing such [a clause] have established premium rates in reliance upon the validity of such a clause being upheld by the decisions of this court." Bauman v. Gilbertson, 7 Wis. 2d 467, 469 , 96 N.W.2d 854 (1959). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Fandrey v. American Family Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2005Co., 2004 WI 62, ¶ 16 , 272 Wis. 2d 46 , 680 N.W.2d 345 . 7 Therefore, as Hayne concluded that the physical contact requirement is part of the UM statute, it cannot contravene public policy; it is public policy. ¶ 61. 2005Co., 2004 WI 62, ¶ 16 , 272 Wis. 2d 46 , 680 N.W.2d 345 . 7 Therefore, as Hayne concluded that the physical contact requirement is part of the UM statute, it cannot contravene public policy; it is public policy. ¶ 61. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Patrick v. Head of the Lakes Cooperative Electric Ass'n
green
1 sentence2000Ass'n, 98 Wis. 2d 66, 69 , 259 N.W.2d 205 (Ct. App. 1980). 10 A number of courts and commentators have concluded that the physical contact requirement is designed to prevent drivers from claiming hit-and-run coverage after suffering accidents of their own making. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Amidzich v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance
green
2 sentences2000Co., 44 Wis. 2d 45 , 170 N.W.2d 813 (1969), the first case setting forth the physical contact rule, an unidentified car forced the insured off the road; there was no physical contact between the cars. ¶ 23. 2000Co., 44 Wis. 2d 45 , 170 N.W.2d 813 (1969), the first case setting forth the physical contact rule, an unidentified car forced the insured off the road; there was no physical contact between the cars. ¶ 23. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.